30
India. He has a significant role in building the perception of the superiority of
Indian software talent.
This would have probably happened even without Dewang. But his in-your-face,
forthright and well-timed statements sharpened the edges of the image, bringing it
into greater clarity and focus. And of course, gained a disproportionately larger
share of global media attention in the process.
There has been this contentious issue that Dewang presented very optimistic industry
statistics.
First of all, if Dewang got some numbers wrong, he was in very good company.
The NASDAQ, legions of financial analysts and hosts of columnists have eaten
a humble pie on this account.
Let us not forget that we are talking about a relatively young industry and that
the pace of technological change makes every quantification exercise fraught with peril.
Projections are made with the best available information, and consumer behaviour
has a way of upsetting the most careful calculations.
Statistics are ultimately a means to an end. In this case, the end was the propagation
of the Indian software industry, and through it, the overall economic development
of the country.
Critics ignore the fact that financial market indicators and industry fundamentals
are independent factors. Dewang was never off the mark on the fundamental trends.
Timing, percentages and statistics are the manifestations not the cause and the
drivers of change.
Even if the statistics presented an optimistic scenario, would the alternative of
pessimistic projections have served a constructive purpose? Neither Dewang
nor NASSCOM can be ascribed any mala fide motive for presenting a rosier picture.
His anti-piracy activism has also drawn unjustified criticism. The core problem
is that piracy is viewed as a harmless practice that anyway robs only the rich.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The global economy is rapidly moving from
“
hard” industries to “soft” services, where value resides in IPRs.
If India has to become an IPR leader, respect for IPRs must begin at home. Large
businesses can absorb IPR violation losses, but these can kill smaller innovation-
